Jammu Kashmir Now

Pages

Saturday, 21 September 2013

Local
militancy on revival route in Kashmir

Jammu, September 18

Here hangs a
tale. Two local militants, Aqib Rashid Sofi and Bilal Ahmad Bhat — who were
killed in an encounter with security forces in Bandipore district in north
Kashmir on Tuesday evening — are part of the emerging narrative in Kashmir that
local youth are once again picking up guns and grenades. They were not the
first ones nor can they be counted as the last in the series of locals who have
started rejoining the ranks of militant outfits to give an outlet to their
frustration. The assessment by the police and other agencies reveals that
locals are getting attracted to militancy because of multiple reasons - the
biggest being disillusionment with the system and radicalisation.

here
are plenty of Aqibs and Bilals roaming across the Valley. Some of them are
students, others are job-seekers. Many others are looking for money. The story
doesn’t stop here. They are also addicted to websites and the preaching of
Imams who have come from madrasas outside state like Uttar Pradesh whose stress
is on “ jihad.” The same role is being played by a large number of overground
workers (OGWs).

During the wave
of violence in 2010 in Kashmir, the youth
realised that despite heavy casualties, their voice remained unheard. The
government just stuck to fire-fighting measures. There was non-implementation
of reports that were aimed at cooling the tempers and giving birth to hope.

An
atmosphere of radicalisation prevails in the Valley and some parts of Jammu region. Fuelling
the crisis is the unhindered flow of money from across the border. Pakistan
remains the favourite “hawala” route. New sources of money such as the Gulf
have also come up.

Militant
outfits have no dearth of arms and ammunition. Official sources say there were
dumps of arms and ammunition known only to the militant outfits. These weapons
were stockpiled during the peak of militancy . It has emboldened the terror
outfits and they are getting radical recruits and a lot of money too to run
their campaign to get the youth willing to fight and die. These recruits pick
up guns and dare to take on security forces with equal amount of ferocity as
foreign militants. Foreign militants continue to come from across the Line of
Control (LoC). The rising number of infiltration bids and ceasefire violations
are proof of it.

The
local element is growing in the militant ranks. Ironically, this trend is
picking up simultaneously with many other youths working hard to get into the
civil services. Earlier, foreign militants used to display their “special”
skills by mounting fidayeen attacks or fighting security forces for days
together. Now, local militants are doing the same. Statistics speak for
themselves. The casualties so far in militant attacks this year is the highest
in the last eight years. In 16 major attacks this year, militants have killed
33 security personnel — 13 Army soldiers, six CRPF men and 13 policemen.

The background
of these local militants is different: they were born and brought up amid the
gun and grenade culture. Unlike their elders, they did not see peaceful Kashmir. They had dreams and wanted to make it big in
life. They were studying to qualify for decent jobs and live an honourable
life. But their dreams got quashed by rampant corruption and government
indifference. Distraught, they tried to turn their helplessness into power by
picking up guns. “No one took care of these youth, whose age group ranges from
18 to 30,” said sources.

Militancy
reached its peak in Kashmir in the mid-1990s when foreign militants from Pakistan to Sudan gave it a big push. That was
the time when the Valley witnessed daily attacks and foreign militants,
especially drawn from Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat-ul- Ansar, later rechristened
as Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, were in the lead.

After the
release of Azhar Masood, one of the three militants who were released in
exchange of IC-814 passengers, Jaish-e-Mohammad was born. The high-profile
terror acts such as the attack on the state Legislative Assembly and Parliament
were committed by foreign militants. Local outfits such as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen
were made to take the responsibility in a bid to give an impression that
everything was being done by local militants. That was then. Now, deadly
attacks by local militants have become a reality.

JAMMU,
Sept 18: Terming the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Valley in 1989-90 an
unprecedented human tragedy, Marcus Jones MP of United Kingdom hassaid the response of the UK Government to
this tragedy was inadequate. Addressing a largely attended seminar organized by
Indo-European Kashmir Forum (IEKF) at London on
the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus recently, Mr Jones appreciated the
IEKF’s initiative of organizing the seminar to highlight the plight of the
displaced Pandits from Kashmir.

A handout issued
by IEKF said Mr Jonespresented a
forceful and passionate assertion that for the ethnic minority, to remain in
exile for over two decades, is shameful. It is the solemn responsibility of the
Indian Government and the international community to effectively and decisively
to effectively address to the short term and long term concerns of Kashmiri
Pandits. “I am indeed pained with your plight and the struggle that you have
endured for the last two decades. Your dignified and structured return will be
litmus test both for the local administration and all stakeholders’’, Mr Jones
said.

Among
the key note speakers in the seminar also included Andrew Griffiths another MP
of UK, Krishana Bhan, president IEKF, Vijay Sazawal International Coordinator
of IAKF, ICKF and IEKF, Moti Kaul president AIKS, Raj Pandit president of UK
Priest Association, Bharti Tailor, president of the Hindu Forum of Europe, Vivek
Kaul, member IEKF, Shantanu Bhagwat, former Diplomat of India Gopal Krishana
Rao, representative of Kanchi Kamoti in Chnnai, Surinder Sharma former
president of Overseas Friends of BJP in UK and Chandan Kotwal Executive Member
IEKF. Krishna Bhan highlighted the continued apathy towards the aborigines and
also highlighted the KPs heritage in the form of temples and shrines that stand
in ruins today. She further stated that the race stands at the verge of
extinction.

Vijay
Sazawal said that it is high time for the Untied Nation Security Council to
close the Kashmir file by announcing its intension to declare the ceasefire
line as the International boundary and ask India
and Pakistan
to settle adjustments along LoC.

Moti Kaul
lambasted both Centre and State Governments for responding to the issues
concerning displaced Pandits.

Is the Chamber
of Commerce and Industry (CCI), Jammu,
planning to take recourse to an extreme step and start an indefinite strike? If
what the otherwise quite moderate and peace-loving president of the CCI Y.V.
Sharma told reporters in Jammu on September 18 is any indication, then it can
be said without any hesitation that Jammu could be on the warpath anytime after
a couple of days. Talking to reporters, Sharma, along with his colleagues, had,
among other things, said: “The Chamber may call for an indefinite strike or
launch a non-cooperation movement against the government if it doesn’t adopt
the trader-friendly policy” and accused the government of “ignoring the demands
of the traders”.

“The government
had assured the Chamber that it will assess the losses suffered by the victims
of Kishtwar riots (read violence as certain anti-India elements and extremists
had targeted the members of the minority community after offering Eid prayers
on August 9 and there is nothing on the ground which could even remotely
suggest that the minority community had played some mischief to provoke members
of the majority community to attack them or avenge the mischief) within a
month,” Sharma also said, and added that the state government had made a solemn
commitment that it will compensate the victims of violence on the basis of
“actual loss…in the next 30 days of the assessment of loss”.

What provoked
the CCI to threaten an indefinite strike? It was, according to him, the recent
cabinet decision wherein it was announced that in all the cases the limit of
compensation will be between Rs. 2 lakh and Rs. 5 lakh, irrespective of the
extent of the loss. The other provocation was the condition that the
compensation will be distributed equally between the owners of the shops and
the tenants doing business in the said shops. Sharma took exception to this
condition saying that the CCI had been given to understand that “this order
would be applicable retrospectively with effect from April 1, 2013″. “It is a
breach of trust,” Sharma stated bemoaning the arbitrary conduct of the
concerned authorities.

As a matter of
fact, the CCI leadership charged the authorities with going back on their
solemn commitment that had induced it to call off its strike last month against
what it called the official “inaction” in Kishtwar. “The CCI withdrew its strike
only after the express assurance of the Chief Minister and his team of
ministers involved in the dialogue that the traders must be paid full
compensation for the losses they suffered” on August 9, when Kishtwar witnessed
violence on an unprecedented scale with the hooligans and anti-national
elements attacking members of the minority community, looting and plundering
their shops and business establishments and setting on fire their properties
and vehicles, including cars.

According to one
estimate, the anti-national elements had set on fire more than 80 properties of
the minority community, including shops and other establishments, besides other
things, including even government vehicles and petrol tankers. The violence had
also resulted in three deaths and injuries to several others, some of whom had
to be airlifted to Army Hospital, Udhampur, and Jammu Medical
College Hospital
for immediate treatment. The Army had to airlift the injured civilians as those
who controlled the Kishtwar
District Hospital
had refused admission to the injured civilians belonging to the minority
community.

The situation in
Kishtwar would not have deteriorated to the extent it deteriorated had the law
and order authorities and certain important elements in the government and local
civil administration taken all the precautionary measures and acted in time and
enforced curfew strictly. It may be pointed out that the local authorities had
announced curfew at about 12 noon but it was enforced only after 7 p.m. for the
reasons best known to them. It was this act on their part that enabled the
goons and votaries of Great Kashmir and Pakistan to enact the drama of
death and destruction with utmost ease and go scot-free. The Army swung into
action after 7 p.m. and brought the situation under control.

It would not be
out of place to mention here that Kishtwar and the adjoining affected towns
remained under curfew for days together as the authorities apprehended more
trouble there. It is also important to note that the organized violence had
made a number of families belonging to the minority community migrate to safer
places. In fact, some of them did migrate, but returned to their original
habitat after the situation got normal and the community leaders played an
important role. The gravity of the situation could be gauged from the fact that
the Minister of State Home Sajjad Ahmad Kitchloo, who hails from Kishtwar and
was there when violence broke out, had to tender resignation on August 12, the
day the Indian Parliament took up the Kishtwar issue in a big way and the
entire opposition comprising the BJP, the CPI, the CPI-M, the BSP, the TDP, the
TMC and other parties in one voice condemned the planned violence and demanded
stringent action against the culprits. Indeed, the entire opposition held the
state government responsible for the unfortunate and avoidable gory incident
with the BSP even demanding its dismissal and imposition of the Governor’s
Rule, the CPI-M accusing the state government of allowing the situation to
deteriorate and the BJP telling the ruling clique that the state did not belong
to “one family”.

What happened on
August 9 continues to cause concern even today. And what the CCI said has to be
viewed in this context. The state government would do well to address its
concerns and concede its demands, which are genuine by any yardstick. Their
demands include compensation to the victims based on the actual loss and
rehabilitation of all the victims of Kishtwar tragedy in a way that they
harbour no ill will or grudge against the authorities. Even otherwise, the
authorities are required to go an extra mile to assuage the hurt feelings of
the victims of violence and, hence, it is imperative to concede the demands as
put forth by the CCI on behalf of the affected people.

Friday, 20 September 2013

Evolving
relations between Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan

WASHINGTON,
DC: The opinion makers in Gilgit-Baltistan and
Azad-Kashmir (AJK) find themselves at odds in defining the relationship of
Gilgit-Baltistan with the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. They also differ in views
on how the lingering Kashmir dispute should be
resolved. The majority of the people in Gilgit-Baltistan maintain that their
forefathers liberated the region from the despotic rulers of Kashmir in 1947
and subsequently declared allegiance with the newly created state of Pakistan.
Therefore they expect Pakistan
to merge their region as its fifth province. However, there is a significant
minority which promotes the idea of an independent republic. It points to the
fact that UN resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir
require Pakistan
to withdraw from Gilgit-Baltistan and transfer control to local powers. It
therefore maintains that the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have the right to rule
their land without any interference from Pakistan.

On
the other hand, the people of AJK, often considered the voice of the ongoing
separatist movement in Indian Kashmir, consider Gilgit-Baltistan an integral
part of Kashmir and vehemently oppose its merger with Pakistan.
Similar views prevail across the line of control (LOC), wherein both the
pro-Indian Kashmiri leadership and the separatists claim Gilgit-Baltistan as
part of Kashmir.

Recently,
Molvi Umar Farooq, the leader of the separatist Hurriyat Conference, while
talking to the media in Pakistan’s
capital Islamabad, reiterated Kashmir’s
claim over Gilgit-Baltistan. Similar assertions have come from the political
and religious leaders of Diamer district of Gilgit-Baltistan including the
members of Gilgit-Baltistan National Alliance. These differing thoughts on the
fate of Gilgit-Baltistan strain the already polarized and charged discussion
among various stakeholders who strive to build alliances across sectarian,
linguistic and ethnic lines.

Pro-Pakistan
leadership in Gilgit-Baltistan has repeatedly condemned Kashmiris for such
overarching claims over their region. However, the same leaders have also been
unsuccessful in convincing successive Pakistani regimes to amend the country’s constitution
and merge Gilgit-Baltistan. Even today, Pakistan’s federal institutions
including the Supreme Court, Office of the President, Office of the Prime
Minister, cabinet members, chiefs of the armed forces, and heads of different
parliamentary committees maintain that Gilgit-Baltistan is a UN declared
disputed area and her residents cannot be declared citizens of Pakistan until
India and Pakistan resolve the issue of accession of Jammu and Kashmir.

Interesting
yet ironic, India, unlike Pakistan, claims
Gilgit-Baltistan as a constitutional part of the country and declares the
people of Gilgit-Baltistan as her citizens. In 1994, both houses of the Indian
Parliament passed a unanimous resolution reiterating that Pakistani controlled
parts of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan are integral parts of India. However,
given that physical control of the region remains with Pakistan; such
constitutional provisions are futile in doing any good for the people of
Gilgit-Baltistan.

iven
India’s claim over Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, an amicable solution
between the two countries is indeed a Herculean task. For Pakistan to retain permanent control over
Gilgit-Baltistan, it will have to withdraw the issue from the UN and persuade India to amend
its constitution to redefine the international boundary between both countries.
Given the fragmented nature of the parliament, no Indian government is in a
position to muster a two-third majority and convince lawmakers to concede
almost 90,000 square kilometers of land to Pakistan. Another source of ire for
India is Pakistan’s
unwillingness to discuss the issue bi-laterally and its insistence on a larger
multilateral role. Hardened attitudes have hindered ability of both countries
to successfully engage in conclusive dialogue on the dispute.

hile
India and Pakistan have established constitutional
frameworks in their respective areas of Kashmir; Islamabad rules Gilgit-Baltistan through
ad-hoc presidential ordinances which are subject to periodic renewals. At this
time, Gilgit-Baltistan has no representation in federal judicial and political
institutions. Lacking constitutional legitimacy, Gilgit-Baltistan’s overall
development and social fabric have suffered and the situation hinders justice
and equal human rights.

ow,
as the people in Gilgit-Baltistan slowly awaken to the reality that they will
not become Pakistan’s
citizens anytime soon, they are starting to demand the same rights the people
of AJK have enjoyed since 1949. This includes the establishment of a
constitutional framework, the offices of the President and Prime Minister, a
Supreme Court and reinstatement of State Subject Rule.

The
Gilgit-Baltistan Democratic Alliance, a leading political conglomerate of eight
nationalist parties favors such a setup till the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. To advance such demands, prominent
political figures of Gilgit-Baltistan including the Vice Chairperson of
Pakistan Workers’ Party, Babajan Hunzai and member of Gilgit-Baltistan
Legislative Assembly, Raziuddin Rizvi, recently visited AJK and shared their
views with the local leadership there. An encouraging gesture came from the
legislative assembly of AJK afterwards which passed a unanimous resolution
demanding a separate constitutional framework for Gilgit-Baltistan.

Gilgit-Baltistan
has gone through twelve political and administrative experiments since 1948. It
is about time that Gilgit-Baltistan receives a constitutional framework of its
own. The leaders of Gilgit-Baltistan, AJK and Pakistan should work towards a
win-win solution rather than accepting an impasse. Merging with Pakistan or AJK
are paths fraught with obstacles. Creating a constitutional framework similar
to AJK will therefore allow Gilgit-Baltistan to retain her identity while
helping to defuse opposition from different quarters in New
Delhi, Islamabad and Kashmir.

Source:. Sering
is the President of Washington D.C. based Institute for Gilgit Baltistan
Studies. He hails from Shigar valley of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Gilgit-Baltistan
is politically marginalized yet a geo-strategic region, which borders China, India,
Afghanistan-Tajikistan and Pakistan.
China
has been involved in development of the region since the early 1960s while
recently earmarking billions of dollars for mineral extraction, dam building,
and industrial and telecom growth. The Institute believes that since
Gilgit-Baltistan is sparsely populated, ecologically fragile, and contested by
two nuclear powers, rapid interventions can create political friction at the
global level.

Given
China’s
interest in accessing the Gwadar port through Gilgit-Baltistan, thousands of
Chinese workers and security personnel have entered the disputed region
endangering the well being of locals and placing an extra burden on resources.
It is estimated that China
will invest more than $30 billion in Gilgit-Baltistan in the coming years to
build dams and connect Xinjiang with Gwadar via rail and road.

This
will help China access naval
bases in Karachi
and Balochistan. Chinese firms are also involved in mineral extraction which
has triggered tens of thousands of locals to protest. Although many of these
projects could lead to prosperity, the presence of foreign workers could
deprive the poverty-stricken citizens of economic opportunities. In some
instances, the natives have clashed with Chinese workers demanding their
withdrawal.

The
Institute remains keen in analyzing these evolving situations which have
long-term cultural, environmental and political implications for the region.
The Institute asks the Pakistani government not to promote Chinese Mandarin
language in Gilgit-Baltistan at the cost of the indigenous languages. There is
already a ban on teaching native languages in government schools which could
lead to a cultural genocide.

The
Institute also focuses on terrorism. The Pakistani government has long used
Gilgit-Baltistan to promote insurgency in Afghanistan
and India.
In 1974, Pakistan
violated UN resolutions by abrogating the State Subject Rule and causing
large-scale demographic change in Gilgit-Baltistan. Many internationally banned
state-led organizations have since established their presence in the region.

Extremists
and militants threaten the survival of the native population which follows Shia
and Sufi traditions. Shias refuse to allow their land being used as
sanctuaries, training camps and launching pads for insurgencies which has
become the main cause of their persecution. The Pakistani secret service is
concerned about losing control over the strategic region, and encourages the
persecution ofShias to keep them
subservient. As a result, thousands of Shias have died in the past 65 years
while tens of thousands have been forced out of their homes and continue to
live as refugees.

In
2012, more than 100 Shias of Gilgit-Baltistan were killed by terrorists.
Demographic change through exodus, genocide and forceful conversions has helped
the militants secure grounds in different regions. Growing extremism has
brought social degradation and polarized religious and ethnic groups. At the
same time, it has affected the tourism industry which is the backbone of local
economic growth.

Militants
have also forced India
to increase troop-deployment on the border with Gilgit-Baltistan creating
political friction. As the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan
is fast approaching, it is feared that Gilgit-Baltistan will once again become
the hub of banned terrorist outfits which intend to infiltrate into northern Afghanistan.
The Institute believes that the fallout of these advances on local people and
culture will be detrimental. Given the gravity of the situation, the Institute
believes that the US
government should declare Pakistan
a country of particular concern (CPC) to contain state-led religious
persecution. The Institute also strongly recommends that Pakistan remove militant camps and
reinstate State Subject Rule in Gilgit-Baltistan to discourage religious and
racial demographic change and resource thievery.

Moreover,
the Institute suggests that Pakistan
resume travel between Afghanistan,
Gilgit-Baltistan and India
to promote trade and secular culture as a counter to the growing extremism. For
centuries, these routes have served as the lifeline of the silk trade and
brought prosperity to the locals. The closed border has directly affected more
than half a million people in Gilgit-Baltistan who now survive on government
handouts and temporary labor.

The
Institute shares the view that isolation and closed borders breeds terrorism
and restricts the ability of the natives to resist militant onslaught.
Therefore resumption of trade on traditional routes will be an incentive for
the locals to empower themselves financially and partner with Western
governments in the fight against terrorism. Resuming travel between
Gilgit-Baltistan and India
is also a humanitarian appeal as it will allow more than ten thousand refugees
reunite with their relatives across the Line of Control, which has become the
Berlin Wall of South Asia.

Pakistan lacks
sovereignty over the disputed region of Gilgit-Baltistan and rules it with
ad-hoc ordinances. As Gilgit-Baltistan remains outside Pakistan’s
constitutional framework, such temporary political frameworks have failed to
provide socioeconomic relief or justice to the locals. These ordinances –
twelve in total since 1948 – have promoted exploitation of resources by
outsiders but with little benefits to the indigenous peoples.

The
Institute remains a committed defender of courageous political and cultural
activists who work at great personal risk. Currently several political
activists are facing sedition charges and detention for challenging illegal
government practices. The Institute demands immediate release of all political
prisoners and an investigation by the UN into the state-led extra judicial
killings in Gilgit-Baltistan.The
Institute also asks Pakistan
and India
to demilitarize the region to de-escalate tension. Pakistan
has fought many wars with India
over Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, most
recently the Kargil war of 1999 which killed more than 4,000 people in
Gilgit-Baltistan. The Institute supports peaceful dialogue as the only means to
solve the Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan dispute
and expects that the UN plays a supportive role in this regard.

(Senge Sering is
a researcher and human rights advocate. He was born in the UN declared disputed
region of Gilgit-Baltistan which remains in Pakistani control since 1948.
Currently, he is managing the Institute for Gilgit Baltistan Studies, based in Washington DC.
He frequently visits the Geneva based United Nations Human Rights Council, the
European Parliament, the British Parliament and the American Congress where he
raises awareness about Gilgit Baltistan. Senge has been instrumental in
arranging conference on Gilgit Baltistan in collaboration with several US and European
think tanks and disseminating information on related issues)